Theological Grub-Ax 


J.H. Nichols 


THE LIBRARY OF 


REVEREND Harry M. NorTH 


GRADUATE OF THE CLASS OF 1899 
TRUSTEE 1919-1932 


DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
DURHAM, N. C. 


BOG! ‘12 NYP “ivd 
"AN ‘esnoeisg 


SIeqey . 
‘ouy “soOig p1ojAeDy 
4epulg 
yjudweg 
ju nowojoud 


\ 


BY THE REV. J. H. NICHOLS, 
Author of “Furnace,” “Pump,” etc. 


SEVENTY-FIRST THOUSAND. 


PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
NASHVILLE, TENN.; DALLas, TEX.: 
PUBLISHING HovusE oF THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH. 
Sarre & Lamar, AGENTs. 

1908. 


THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 


A TREATISE ON INFANT BAPTISM. 


BY THE REV. J. H. NICHOLS, 


Author of ** Right of a Sinner to Pray.” 


NASHVILLE, TENN.; Datuas, TEx.: 
PUBLISHING HousE OF THE M. E. Cuurcn, Sourn. 
Smita & LaMar, AGENTS 
1908, 


4{\3|>> 


wo. Ne 

“Pp tne , 
Sch. R. 
woo. 
NG 


THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 


AAvine been raised a farmer, and taught the use of the grub-ax, 
I have been casting about for a similar tool which might be used in 
extracting roots of error from the ecclesiastical field. I have made 
the discovery, and in this little book will reveal the secret, and show 
how the ax has been used in grubbing up the. tap-root of a great 
error. The difference between shrubbing and grubbing is very marked 
Sbrubbing is taking off a shrub even with the top of the ground, 
leaving the root in the soil to send up five sprouts where it had only 
on¢ before; while grubbing is taking out every root. The grub-ax 
‘8a much more valuable tool than the shrub-ax, though the shrub- 
1x is in more general use in the ecclesiastical field. The shrub-ax 
‘sg made of orthodox iron, pointed with sarcasm, and tempered with 
stubbornness, The grub-ax is composed of Bible steel, pointed 
with love, and tempered with the Holy Ghost, ‘This wonderful ax, 
faithfully used, will soon clear the ecclesiastical field of all shrubs 
of ervor; and where the deepest grubbing is done, there the richest 
plants of truth will grow. Take the grub-ax, brother, and pour in 
the licks. Rocks and dirt alike will crumble before it, and the more 


it is used the brighter and sharper it wil be. 
; GRUBBER 


(59) 


PEHEYaA 


INTRODUCTION. : 


In regard to the Church of God there are three theories, viz. : 

1, The Church of God now in the world is the same Church te 
which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and all the prophets, belonged 
and infants have a right to membership in it. 

2. There is no true Church of God now on earth, except the 
Church which was organized by John the Baptist somewhere in the 
wilderness, some time during his public ministry; and children haye 
no right to membership in it. 

3. The only true Church now in the world is the one which Peter 
organized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; and it would be very 
sinful to admit infants to membership in it. 

Now, it requires only about one-half of an ordinary eye to see 
that two of the above theories must be incorrect. Having been con- 
cerned for some tinie to know which one was correct, I took quite an 
interest in a dialogue I heard on the subject, and propose to give all 
concerned the benefit of what I heard. My hearing is very acute, 
and | think I shall be able to give the dialogue just as it was spoken. 

The parties engaged in the dialogue seemed to be plain, common- 
sense men, and took it after the fashion of “club-fist”—take it off 
or I will knock it off. They did not discuss each other, but they 
did discuss each other’s doctrine. 

Yours, with much respect, 


GRUBBER. 
April 2, 1882) 


(60) 


CHAPTER II. 


THE GRUB-AX. 


CAMPBELLITE. Good-morning, Brother Methodist; I am 
huppy to meet you this fine day. I hope you can spare 
the time to give me some information in regard to some of 
the doctrines taught by your Church, as they are contrary 
to what I understand the Bible to teach. 

Meruopist. Certainly; I am at your service. 

C. Your book of Discipline says that the “written word 
of God is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our 
faith and practice.” In reading my Bible, I fail to find 
any thing said about infant baptism. You Methodists bap- 
tize infants, and I would thank you for the scripture on 
the subject. 

M. You shall have it, provided you will explain one 
thing you said in your sermon last night. You said, 
“When I ask sinners to come and confess Christ and obey 
the gospel, I do not invite them to the Methodist, Baptist, 
or Campbellite Church, but I invite them to Jesus.” 
What did you mean by that? 

C. 1 meant, (1) they must believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God; (2) they must repent of their sins; (3) 
they must make the good confession; and (4) be baptized. 

M. According to your doctrine, then, no one can come 
ty Jesus without water baptism. 

©. That is my doctrine, strictly. 

M. Have all whom Jesus invites to him the right to come? 

C. Certainly, they have; I suppose no one ever doubted 
that. (61) 


P60529 


62 _ ‘TrEoLogicaL GruB-ax. 


M. I will now give you one verse: “Suffer the little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of 
such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark x. 14.) Luke says 
they were “infants” (Luke xviii. 15). Now, we will try 
this scripture by your own theory: (1) You say all whom 
Jesus invited haye a right to come; (2) no one can come 
without water baptism. Conclusion: Infants have been 
invited by Christ, therefore they have a right to baptism, 
according to your own theory. Will you have yours bap- 
tized ? 

C. O that is not fair; I did not see what you were driy- 
ing at. Of course I cannot have my children baptized, 
for they are good enough; they do not need it. 

M. Good enough? Do you think they-are as good as 
you are? 

C. They are much better than I am; but baptism woul i 
bring them into the Church, and that would not do. 

M. Pardon me, please—are you in the Church? 

C. O yes; I have been baptized, and that brought me in. 

M. Look at your theory again: (1) You are in the 
Church; (2) your children are better than you are; (2 
yet it would be very wrong to bring them into the Church. 
How is that? Are your children too good for the Church? 

C. O no; but they have never sinned, and they do not 
need baptism until after they have committed sin; and they 
are not entitled to Church-membership until after baptism. 

M. Actual sin, then, is a prerequisite qualification for 
Church-membership, is it? That would exclude Christ, for 
“he knew no sin.” 

C. You do not seem to understand me. I mean that if 
my children were to die, just as they are, without being 
brought by baptism into the Church, they would go to heaven. 

M. Look at your theory again: Your children are bet- 
ter than their father—good enough for heaven—and yet 
they must be denied a place in the Church of God! Is the 
Church on earth purer ev or what is the matter! 


A TREATISE on Inranr Baptism. 63 


C. 1 think the Church on earth and heaven are very dif- 
ferent. 

M. Hear St. Paul on the subject: “For this cause I 
bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” 
(Eph. iii. 14, 15.) Here Paul calls the Church a family, 
part of which is “in heaven,” and part “in earth.” 
Now, you think if your children were to die they would be 
recugnized as members of the family “in heaven,” but it 
would be wrong to recognize them as members of the 
family “in earth.” Suppose a family going West were 
to leave some of the members at the old homestead to 
settle up some business, and then join the other members 
in the West; and suppose a little babe belonging to the 
family was left with those who remain at the original 
tome, and the brothers and sisters should say, “ We must 
aot recognize this babe as a member of the family here, 
for doubtless our new home will be quite different from 
this one, and the babe will be a member of the family when 
it gets to our new home, of course; but it would be wicked 
to recugnize it here,” and cast the helpless little thing 
off, what would you think of their conduct? 

C. I would think it very cruel and unjust to the child. 

M. Then if (as Paul says) the Church on earth and in 
heaven is one family, and all children are recognized as 
members of the family in heaven, how cruel and unjust 
must it be for you to deny your children membership ir 
the family on earth! 

C. I must go now, but I will see you to-morrow, and we wili 
tulk about the “setting up of the kingdom,” if it suits 
you. 

M. That will suit me very well. Good-evening. 


SETTING UP THE KINGDOM. 


C. Now, Brother Mcthodist, I have come to remain witt 
yuu =ntil we settle this question of iafant baptism, and | 


64 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 


want it settled by the Bible. You teach that the Chris 
tian Church is a continuation of the Jewish Church, ox 
kingdom. Now, if that is so, who occupied that throne 
while Christ was on earth? 

M. Jesus Christ. 

C. There, now! I thought so! Didn’t you know that 
Christ was not a king until Pentecost; that he went te 
heaven and took his seat on his throne, and sent the Holy 
Ghost at Pentecost to te!l Peter that he was on his throne. 
and that it was time for him to set up the kingdom? 
Christ never was a king until Pentecost. 

M. What book is that you have under your arm? 

C. It is the New Testament. You Methodists are such 
folks to dodge, I brought it along to set you right and keer 
you right. r 

M. Please turn to Matt. ii. 2, and read will you? 

C. Yes, sir: “Saying, Where is he that is born King of 
the Jews?” 

M. How is that? Those “wise men” say Jesus was burn 
a king, and you say he was not a king till Pentecost. There 
must be a mistake somewhere. 

C. He certainly could not have been a king before his 
kingdom was established, and it was not established until 
Pentecost. 

M. You and those wise men for that. Please hand me 
your Testament. Now, let ussee. When Jesus was on trial, 
Pilate asked him, “Art thou aking then? Jesus answered, 
Thou sayest that [amaking. To this end was I born, and 
for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear 
witness unto the truth.” (John xviii. 37.) Here Jesus 
acknowledged that he was a king born to that end, and Pilate 
believed it, for he “ wrote a title, and put it on the cross... 
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” (John xix. 19.) 
And Pilate could not be induced to change this title. 

C. I thought I had read in the Bible that Christ war 
made a king at Pentecost. 


A Treatise on Iwrant Barris. 65 

M. Mr. Brent’s “Gospel Plan of Salvation” reads that 
way, but Christ’s plan does not. 

C. Then, if Christ was a king, what throne did he occupy, 
and over whom did he rule? 

M I will let Isaiah and the apostles answer. “Of the 
imecrease of his government and peace there shall be no end, 
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order 
it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from 
henceforth even forever.” (Isa. ix. 7.) “And the Lord 
shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and 
he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever.” (Luke i. 
32, 33.) We see from these passages, (1) that the throne 
of David was the only throne promised, and the only one 
given to Jesus; (2) that of the increase of his government 
aud peace there shall be no end upon the throne of David, 
and upon his kingdom; (3) that he should reign over the 
house of Jacob, or Israel, forever. Did David ever sit upon 
the throne of that new kingdom which you say was set up 
at Pentecost? 

_ C. Pshaw! You have missed the whole thing. Give me 
one verse from Acts, and I will accept that. 

M. Very well. “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing 
that God had sworn with an oath to him (David), that of 
the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise 
up Christ to sit on his throne.” (Acts ii. 30.) So, you see, 
ou the very day of Pentecost it was stated that Christ 
should sit on the throne of David. Now, if the Jewish 
Mhurch was just about to be done away, and a new Church 
just going to be organized, this would have been the time 
and place for Peter to have made some mention of it, would 
it not? 

C. Well, it may seem so to you. Who were the apostles 
tu rule over? Had they the right to rule anybody? 

M. Yes. From Washington to Garfield, our Presidente 
have had subordinate officers; and from David to Christ 
all who sat upon the throne of God’s kingdom had their 

1* 


66 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 

subordinate officers. ‘The apostles were Christ’s subordinate 
officers. They had no authority to rule in the Church, 
except as it was given them by Christ. We will consider 
the position of the apostles in the Church under the follow- 
ing head, viz.: 


WHO WERE THE APOSTLES APPOINTED TO JUDGE? 


C. Now, Brother Methodist, be very careful to confine 
yourself to the Bible on this point, for it is very important 
that we should know whether they were to rule in the new 
Church or in the old Jewish Church. 

M. I am not willing to advance an idea that cannot be 
fully sustained by the Bible. 

C. Tell me, then, who the apostles were appointed to 
judge or rule. 

M. The twelve tribes of Israel. 

C. Astonishing! Don’t you know that the new Chureb 
which was organized at Pentecost has no connection what- 
ever with the twelve tribes? How could the apostles rule 
in an organization that was done away at Pentecost? 

M. I will let Jesus answer. “And I appoint unto you a 
kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye 
may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke xxii. 
29, 30.) Is that satisfactory? 

C. I will study that passage some, for the apostles must 
have ruled over the new Church, I think. 

M. When you study it, please note the following points: 
(1) It is the words of Jesus just after he had instituted his Sup- 
per; (2) Jesus placed his table in the twelve tribes, for the 
passage reads, “That ye may eat and drink at my table in 
my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes ;” 
(3) the twelve tribes sprung from the house of Jacob; and 
(4) I have showed you that Christ reigned over the house ~ 
of Jacob. (Luke i. 33.) Seeing that the Lord placed his 
table in the twelve trib 1, ard you say the new Churen har 


A. Treatise on Inranr Baptism. 67 
uv connection with the twelve tribes, I should like to know 
who placed the table which you call the Lord’s table in 
that “new Church.” 

C. You think, then, that Christ and his apostles lid not 
establish a new Church, but continued the Jewish Church 
under the name of the twelve tribes. 

M. That is my belief. Will you accept it? 

C. I will not, unless you give me some proof from ih 
Acts of the Apostles. 

M. Very well. When Paul spoke in his defense before 
Festus and Agrippa, he said: “Unto which promise our 
twelve tribes instantly serving God day and night hope to 
come. For which hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused 
of the Jews.” (Acts xxvi. 7.) Observe the following 
points: (1) Paul claimed no other hope than the hope of 
the twelve tribes; (2) he uttered this language twenty-six 
years after Pentecost; (3) if there was a new Church 
established at Pentecost, it seems that Paul did not belong 
to it, or he would have had the hope of the “ new Church,” 
and not of the twelve tribes. Do you wish any further 
proof ? 

C. Yes, sir; as this is a vital question, I want all the 
poof I can get. Can you give me any thing from the 
Epistles ? 

M. Certainly. “James, a servant of God, and of the 
lwrd Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered 
abroad, greeting.” (James i. 1.) From this you see that 
James dedicated his Epistle to the twelve tribes, and not to 

“new Church.” Now, remember that James wrote thi 
Epistle several years after Pentecost, but he does not seer 

o have heard of that “new Church.” Did any inspired 
apostle ever address a letter to the “ new Church?” 

C."I do not remember that they did; but we will be 
all right when we get to heaven. God knows his true 
Shureh., 

M. Let us see if we can find anv mention made of the 


68 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AR. 

“new Church” in connection with heaven. In speaking 
of the heavenly Jerusalem, St. John said it “had twelve 
gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written 
thereou, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the 
children of Israel.” (Rev. xxi. 12.) Now, if God estab- 
lished a “new Church” at Pentecost, and did away with 
the Church in the twelve tribes, as you teach, dces it not 
look strange that he did not have its name written some- 
where about the heavenly Jerusalem? 

C. I do not understand that. I am getting worried with 
this matter, anyhow, and I wish to dismiss this twelve 
tribe business, and talk with you on the subject under the 
title of kingdom. I know I can sustain my theory under 
that head. 

M. I will take great pleasure in talking to you about the 
kingdom, but I wish to add another thought to this “twelve 
tribe business,” as you call it. Let us enter into the “new 
Jerusalem,” and see if there has been any arrangement 
made there for the “new Church.” “On either side of the 
river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner 
of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves 
of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” (Rey. 
xxii. 2.) There, you see, is fruit representing each of the 
twelvs tribes, but none to represent the “new Church.” 
Now, I will sum up some of the points I have made. (1) 
If there was a “new Church” established at Pentecost, 
Christ did not rule it, for he ruled the house of Jacob, or 
the twelve tribes; (2) the apostles had no care over it, fu. 
they were appointed “judges of the twelve tribes;” (3) the 
Lord did not give it any table, for he put bis table in the 
twelve tribes; (4) God did not appoint any apostle to write 
an epistle to it; (5) its name is not written on any one of the 
gates of the new Jerusalem, but the names of the twelve 
tribes are written there; (6) there is nothing in heaven 
to represent it. (7) there is no mention made of it in the 
P*ble. 


A Treatise on INFANT BaPpTisM. 69 
KINGDOM OF GOD. 


C. Now, Brother Methodist, I am going to prove by the 
Bible that the kingdom, or Church, of Christ was organized 
on the day of Pentecost. 

M. I shall gladly hear you. But tell me, do you believe 
that God has a visible and an invisible kingdom in this world? 

U. No. I know nothing of an invisible kingdom. You 
Methodists are always talking about something that no- 
body understands. Where did you get such an idea as 
that? 

M. From the Bible. 

C. Well, I would like to have chapter and verse. 

M. Paul says the kingdom of God is “righteousness, 
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Rom. xiv. 17.) 
Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are all 
invisible, and yet Paul gives them as the component parts 
of God’s kingdom. Now, if all of the parts of God’s king- 
dom are invisible, is not the kingdom invisible? 

C. It would seem so; but I must have more proof before 
I can accept that doctrine. 

M. Very well. Jesus said to his followers, “The king- 
dom of God is within you.” (Luke xvii. 21.) Observe 
that he does not say “the kingdom of God shall be in you 
after it is established at Pentecost,” but he said “is within 
you” Is that satisfactory? 

C. W-e-l-l, you admit that there is a visible kingdom. 

M Certainly I do; and the visible kingdom has good 
and bad people in it, while the kingdom of grace, or spir 
itual kingdom, does not contain one bad person. 

C. How do you know the visible kingdom has bad peo- 
ple in it? 

M. By Christ’s own language: “Again, the kingdom of 
heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and 
gathered of every kind; which, when it was full. they 
drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into 
vessels, but cast the b shall it be at the end 


70 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 

of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the 
wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the 
furnace of fire.” (Matt. xiii. 47-50.) Observe, (1) the 
kingdom is like the net; (2) the net caught good and wad; 
(3) good and bad people get into tne visible kingdom; (4) 
the angels will sever the wicked from among the just, and 
cast them into the fire; (5) so we see that some who are in 
the visible kingdom will be cast into hell at the last day. 

C. I am surprised that I never noticed that before. 
How do people get into these kingdoms—the visible and 
the invisible? 

M. By water baptism, administered to the visible man, 
we are brought into the visible kingdom; by spiritual bap- 
tism, administered to the spiritual man, we are brought into 
the spiritual kingdom. So you sce that a visible ordinance 
brings us into the visible kingdom, and an invisible ordi- 
nance brings us into the invisible kingdom. 

C. You talk like there were two men in one man, one vis- 
ible and the other invisible. Can you give me chapter and 
verse for that? 

M. Yes, sir. “Though our outward man perish, yet the 
inward man is renewed day by day.” (2 Cor. iv. 16.) 
You see, Paul speaks of two men—the body, or outward 
man, is visible; the soul, or inward man, is invisible. 

C. That does seem to be so; but what does that have to 
do with setting up the kingdom, or infant baptism? 

M. I wanted to show you that God had an invisible 
kingdom, which cannot be entered by any one except those 
who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that he had a 
visible kingdom, into which all persons should be admitte¢ 
in infancy. The net gathered all kinds—hiz, little, old, 
young, good and bad. Taking bad fish into the net lid 
not make them good; nor does taking bad peopis inte the 
visible kingdom of God make them good, but it gives them 
better opportunities for hecoming good than they could 
have out of the kingdom : 


A Treavise on [yrant Baptism. 71 

C. How do you prove that we get into the “invisible” 
k:ogdom, as you call it, by the Holy Ghost? 

M. By the language of Christ and his apostles. 

C. Will you give me chapter and verse? 

M Certainly. “Go ye into all the world, and preach 
he gospel to every creature. He that believeth and ie 
Saptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
lamned.” (Mark xvi. 15,16.) It had been said of Jesus, 
“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Jesus, then, 
is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism, and faith is 
the condition on which it is received; so “he that believeth 
and is”—in the act of believing —“ baptized” with the Holy 
Ghost “shall be saved” from past sins. 

C. I always thought that meant water baptism. What 
icads you to believe it means Holy Ghost baptism? 

M. The “signs that should follow them that believed” 
were the signs that followed Holy Ghost baptism; and Paul 
said, when speaking of the body of Christ, or the invisible 
kingdom, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
body.” (1 Cor. xii. 13.) Again: “But ye are washed, but 
ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the 
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor vi. 11.) 
You see from these passages that the Holy Ghost is applied 
to the spiritual, or inward, man, and washes him, justifies him, 
sanctifies him, and baptizes him into the invisible kingdom. 

C. Look here, brother, you have got my head to wool- 
zuthering, and you have dodged around and kept me from 
my point, Now, let us talk directly about 


SETTING UP THE KINGDOM, OR CHURCH. 


{ wish you to understand that what I have to say relates 
to the visible kingdom of God, for I know nothing of the 
invisible kingdom about which you speak. I say the 
Church of God was established on the day of Pentecost, in 
the city of Jerusalem, by the Apostle Peter, and I can prove 
it by the Bible. 


72 THEoLocicaL GruB-ax. 


M. Well, if you can, that will certairly settle the ques- 
tion so far as Iam concerned. Please give me the scripture. 

C. “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven 
set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed.” (Dan. 
ii, 44.) Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my 
Church.” (Matt. xvi. 18.) Now, it does seem to me that if 
any man would just lay aside prejudice, these two passages 
would convince him that the Church was to be established 
after Christ spoke this language, and the day of Pentecost 
was certainly the day on which it was done. Now, I would 
like to know how you will set these two passages aside. 

M. I do not wish to set them aside. I will let the divine 
writers explain them. “In that day will I raise up the 
tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches 
thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it 
as ip the days of old.” (Amos ix. 11.) Now, if we can 
find what this prophecy referred to, it will enable us to get 
some light on the passages you quoted. Let us read Acts 
xv. 15,16: “And to this agree the words of the prophets; 
as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again 
the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I 
will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up.” 
The apostles were considering the matter of circumcision, 
and also the reception of the Gentiles into the Church; and 
they declared that God put no difference between the Jews 
and Gentiles, and that bringing in the Gentiles was “build- 
ing again the tabernacle of David, and setting it up.” 
Now, the passages -you read cannot refer to any other 
Church than the one referred to in the passages I have just 
yead, and they do not refer to establishing a new Church 
out to “building again the tabernacle of David as of old.” 
That accords with Christ sitting on the throne of Dayid, as 
I have already proved in another chapter. 

C. I am not ready to yield my point yet; for if you prove 
that the present Church is a continuation of the Jewish 
Church, I do not see how we can avoid infant membership, 


A ‘Treatise on Inrant Baptism. 73 
for tLey were certainly in the Jewish Church. But I think 
the Jewish Church was a type of the Christian Church. 

VM That cannot benefit your theory, even if it were true; 
for if children were in the type, they certainly should be 
in the antitype, unless you can find a special command from 
God to leave them out, for they were put in by his special 
command. 

C. I do not remember any command to leave them out; 
but I cannot accept your doctrine, because there is not 
sufficient identity between the old and new Church. 

M. I think there is: 1. They have the same Saviour. 
The promise to Abraham was, “Thy seed, which is Christ.” 
(Gal. iii. 16, 17.) 2. The covenant made with Abraham 
was “confirmed before of God in Christ.” (Gal. iii. 17.) 
3. The law was a school-master to the Jews to bring them 
to Christ, that they might be justified by faith.” (Gal. iii. 
24.) 4. “They drank of that Rock that followed them, and 
that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. x. 4.) They had the same 
condition of justification. “Abraham believed in the Lord, 
and he counted it to him for righteousness.” (Gen. xv. 6.) 
Puul made this passage the basis of his grand argument 
on salvation by faith, in Rom. iii. and iv. They had the 
same gospel. “God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham.” (Gal. 
iii. 8.) “Unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto 
them.” (Heb. iv. 2.) So yousee they had the same Saviour, 
the same gospel, and the same condition of pardon. And 
now, brother, I wish to say that the divine writers often 
spoke of the Church before the day of Pentecost, and they 
nowhere intimated that it should be done away and a new 
one made. 

C. Will you give me some of the passages in which they 
spoke of the Church before Pentecost ? 

M. With pleasure. Speaking of Jesus, Stephen said, 
“This is he that was in the Church in the wildernese.” 
(Acts vii. 38.) David said, “In the midst of the cov 


74 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 

gregation will I praise thee.” (Ps. xxii. 22.) The con 
gregation spoken of ky Dayid is called the Church by 
Paul. “In the midst of the Church will I sing praise 
unto thee.” (Heb. ii. 12.) Of certain offenses Jesus said 
to his disciples, “Tell it unto the Church.” (Matt. xviii 
17.) All of these passages refer to the Church before 


Pentecost, and none of them intimate that it should be - 


done away on the day of Pentecost, or any other day. 

C. But you must remember that the day of Pentecost 
was a great day, and many changes took place, one of 
which was the old Church was done away and the new une 
was organized. 

M. If you are correct, that would have been the right 
time and the proper place in which to make some mention of 
it. We will turn to the second chapter of Acts, and see 


if we can find any account of the new organization. 


“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; 
and the same day there were added unto them about three 
thousand souls.” (Acts ii. 41.) This is the only language 
in connection with Pentecost that gives an account of the 
relation of any one being changed, and the statement is, 
“About three thousand souls were added.”’ Added to what? 

C. The new Church, of course, which they were then 
organizing. 

M. Did Peter take himself in, and did the other apostles 
take themselves in too; and then did they all take the 
three thousand in? or how was it? 

C. I do not know just how it was, but— 

M. Don’t you think it was a great oversight in the 
writer of the Acts that he did not tell us’ that the new 
Church was organized then and there, if such was the case? 
Toes he not mention hundreds of things that are not half 
80 important to the Christian world as that would have 
been if it were a fact? 

C. Well, it does not look quite so clear to me as it did. 

M. Do you really believe that God was experimenting 


_ 


A Treatise on Inrant Baptism. 75 
with his people for four thousand years, and that all of his 
experiments failed until Pentecost, when he found just the 
thing he wanted, and wiped out all of his failures, and estab- 
lished the new Church as a monument of his first success- 
ful experiment? Do you believe it? 

C. I think I have said nothing that would justify the 
conclusion that I believe God to he so puerile as that. 

M. If your theory is an exponent of your faith, I could 
not resist the conclusion. 

C. Well, I know I can show from the Bible that we are 
not living under the old covenant that God made with 
Abraham and I propose that we take up the subject under 
the head of 

COVENANT. 

Now, my position is that God did away with the covenant 
he made with Abraham, and that we are living under a 
new and better covenant; and I will see you out on this 
proposition, for I am fully sustained by the Bible. 

M. I will be pleased to hear the scripture which sus- 
tains you in that position. 

C. You shall have it. “Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house 
of Israel and with the house of Judah.” (Heb. viii. 8.) 
Now, don’t you see that God made a new covenant? and 
why will you still contend for the Abrahamic covenant? 

M. Of course God made a new covenant; but I thought 
you were to show that he made a new Church. A cove 
nant is not a Church, is it? 

C. Ono; but when God made a new Church, he made a 
u2W covenant with i, don’t you see? 

M. Then you must give me another passage, for the one 
you read says the new covenant was made “with the house 
of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and a new Church is 
nut mentioned. From the house of Israel sprung the twelve 
tribes; so you see the new covenant was made with the 
twelve tribes, and not with a new Church 


76 TreoLovicaL GrRuB-AX. 

C. Well, it knocks the props from under your theory, 
anyhow: for if God made a new covenant, that does away 
with the covenant with Abraham. 

M. Not at all. It does not affect the Abrahamic cove 
nant in any way. Please read the next verse. 

C. “Not according to the covenant that I made with 
their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand te 
lead them out of the land of Egypt.” (Heb. viii. 9.) 

M. There! You missed the true idea in the passage by 
stopping before you read it all. This “new covenant,” you 
see, was to displace the one God made with his people 
“when he led them out of Egypt,” and not the one he made 
with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before that. 

C. That isso. Why didn’t I see that before? 

M. Perhaps you were not looking for that point. It is 
hard for a man to see what he does not wish to see. 

C. What covenant did God make with the house of Is- 
rae] when he brought them out of Egypt? 

M. He gave them the law of commandments contained 
in ordinances. It included the sacrifices that pointed to 
Christ, and when he came they had an end, for Paul says 
this law was added “till the seed should come to whom 
the promise was made.” (Gall. iii. 19.) 

C. But Christ took the Jewish Church out of the way, 
and nailed it to his cross; so your theory won’t do, at last. 

M. Nailed the Church of God to his cross? You astound - 
me! I suppose you refer to Col. ii. 14. Please read it. 

C. “Blotting out the nandwriting of ordinances that was 
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross.” 

M. Ah! It was “ordinances,” and not the Charch, that 
was nailed to the cross. God had given these ordinances 
as a pledge that Christ would come and redeem the world. 
and when Jesus died on the cross the pledge was redeemed 
und the ordinances were like a note when the amount ex 
pressed in its face is paid— canceled. 


A Treatise on Inrant Baptism. 7 

C. If I fail to find the new Church under the new cove 
aant, I am ata loss to know what to do, for that seems to be 
the only chance left for me. Don’t you think doing away 
with the ordinances nullified the covenant with Abraham} 

M. I will let Paul answer: “And this I say, that the 
covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the 
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot 
disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect’ 
(Gal. iii. 17.) From the covenant God made with Abrahan 
to the departure of Israel from Egypt was four hundred 
and thirty years; so the law mentioned in this passage is the 
law God gave the house of Israel] “when he took them by 
the hand to lead them out of Egypt,” and the new covenant 
had reference to no other law, as I have shown you, and 
Paul says it “cannot disannul” the Abrahamic covenant. 

C. But I read of a better covenant on better promises. 

M. Certainly. The new covenant puts the law of God 
“into the mind, and writes it in the hearts” of his children 

‘(fleb. viii. 10), and that is much better than to have it 
placed before their eyes in the forms of “bleeding birds 
and bleeding beasts,” as it was in the law of ordinances. 
I am at a loss to know how God could make a better cov- 
enant than the one he made with Abraham, for it was “ con- 
firmed before of God in Christ.” That would be hard te 
improve, avould it not? 

C. You think, then, that God made an unlimited cove 
nant with Abraham, and that the Church is under that 
covenant at the present time? 

M. Ido; for if the Church was organized under a Lm. 
ited covenant, when the time was served the Church ceased 
to exist; but if the covenant was unlimited, the Church 
will have an unlimited existence, for God never made two 
evvenants to establish the same end. 

C. How will you prove the Abrahamic covenant to be 
uulimited? I must admit the truth of your logic, but J 
think you will fail to »rove vour first proposition. 


78 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 

M. To the law and to the testimony. But before I be 
gin the argument, I wish to make a few statements: (1) All 
uf the Bible was written by Jews; (2) all of Christ’s 
apostles were Jews; (3) all of God’s covenants were made 
with the Jews. Do you accept these statements? 

C. All but the last; I think that God’s new ceyenan 
was made with the Gunnin 

M. Paul says it was made “ with the house of Israel.” 

C. How, then, can the Gentiles be saved, if God made 
uo covenant with them? 

M. I will let Paul answer. Speaking of the Gentiles 
coming into the Jewish Church, he said: “ And thou (Gen- 
tile), being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them 
(Jews), and with them (Jews) partakest of the root and 
fatness of the olive-tree” (Jewish Church). (Rom. xi. 17.) 
“For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild 
by nature (kingdom of darkness), and wert graffed con- 
trary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall] 
these (Jews), which be the natural branches, be graffed into 
their own olive-tree (Church)?” (Rom.xi.24.) Paul wrote 
this about twenty-seven years after Pentecost, and it was a 
fine time for him to have told the Gentiles that God had 
made a new Church for them, if such had been the fact; 
but he tells them they were “graffed into the good olive 
tree,” or Jewish Church. 

C. But you have not shown that all of Gos) covenants 
were made with the Jews. Please give me chapter and verse. 

M. Of the Jews Paul said: “Who are Israelites; to ~ 
whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the eove 
nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God 
and the promises.” (Rom. ix. 4.) So the Gentiles have no 
separate covenant, but must comply with the terms of the 
covenant made with the Jews in order to their salvation. 

C. Ido not understand that. You promised to show that 
the covenant God made with Abraham was unlimited; and 
if you will do that by the Bible, I wili have my childrer 


\ 


A Treatise oN Inranr Baptism. 7 
oronght into covenant relation with God, for children were 
eertainly included in that covenant. 

M. Are you certain you will stand to that? 

C. Iam. Our Church has none of your ereeds or confes 
ions of faith. Every member is allowed his own privat: 
judgment. 

M. Creed or no creed, you will likely have trouble wit: 
your brethren if you have your children baptized. But | 
will make good my statement. 


ABRAHAMIC COVENANT UNLIMITED. 


C. Please give me chapter and verse; for I love my chil- 
dren, and want them to have all of the benefits of God’s 
covenant to which they are entitled. 

M. I will do so. God said to Abraham: “And I will 
establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed 
after thee, in their generations for an everlasting covenant, 
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” (Gen. 
«vit. 7.) Is everlasting limited, or unlimited? 

C. Pshaw! Everlasting in that passage just means for 
ages, and all of that covenant was done away at Pente- 
cost. 

M. In the Old Testament, when the word “everlasting” 
is used in reference to the Abrahamic covenant, it just 
means “till Pentecost,” does it? 

C. W-e-l-l, I suppose it does. 

M. I will give you another case. Of the rainbow cove 
aunt, God said to Noah: “And the bow shall be in the cloud, 
aud I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlast 
ing covenant between God and every living creature of al 
flesh that is upon the earth.” (Gen. ix. 16.) Do yuo 
think the rainbow covenant was limited? 

C. Of course not. All agree that it was unlimited 
We are under the rainbow covenant now.. 

M. If the correctness of your theory depended on your 
preving the rainbow covenant to be limited. could you not 


80 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 
as easily prove it from the Bible as you could that the 
Abrahamic covenant was limited? 

C. W-e-]-], I don’t know 

M. Suppose we take another passage. “He hath re 
membered his covenant forever, the word which he ccm- 
nanded to a thousand generations; which covenant ~he 
nade with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac; and con 
irmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an 
everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the 
land of Canaan.” (Ps. cy. 8-11.) Observe: (1) This was 
the covenant God made with Abraham; (2) God com- 
manded it to a thousand generations; (3) God obligated 
himself to maintain it with “his oath unto Isaac;” (4) he 
confirmed it unto Jacob for a daw, and to Israel for an ever- 
lasting covenant; (5) in confirmation he gave them the 
land of Canaan. Does that not make it very plain? 

C. It may seem so to you, but I think it all ended on 
the day of Pentecost. 

M. If it did, what becomes of God’s word and oath, fox 
he said and swore that it should stand to a thousand gener- 
ations; and Matthew says: “So all the generations from 
Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from 
David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen 
generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon 
unto Christ are fourteen generations.” (Matt. i.17.) Let 
us say that from the birth of Christ till the day of Pente- 
cost was one generation, and how many generations have we ‘ 

C. Forty-three. 

M. The covenant that God swore should last to a thew 
sand generations you say ended with forty-three generations 
or, in plain words, God made a mistake of nine hundred 
and fifty-seven generations. That is quite a mistake in a 
matter of such moment. Don’t you think it possible you 
may be mistaken? ; 

C. W-e-l-1, of course—I—well, my head seems to be wool 
,athering again. It really looks like you have very nearly 


A Treatise on [nrant Baptism. 81 
sustained your proposition; and if you could give me a 
passage or two from the New Testament, I do not see how 
I could resist any longer. 

M. I will do so. “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye 
Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” 
(Gal. iii. 29.) All of a man’s seed belong to his family 
but the seed spoken of here is any one who belongs « 
Christ. That is, all Christians are the seed of Abraham 
and heirs according to the promise made to Abraham. So, 
you see, all who belong to the family, or Church, of Christ 
belong to the same family, or Church, to which Abraham 
belonged, and are called his seed; hence, Abraham is called 
“the father of us all.” (Rom. iv. 16.) And it is also 
stated that “the promise that he should be the heir of the 
world was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the 
law, but through the righteousness of faith.” (Rom. vi 
13.) To be the children of Abraham, we only have to 
“walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham.” 
(Rom. iv. 12.) Not in the steps of some other faith, but 
the same faith that Abraham had. So Paul says, “Now 
we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” 
(Gal. iv. 28.) 

C. If you could give me one passage from the Acts, I 
would be compelled to give up my theory. 

M. “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
vovenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto 
Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
earth be blessed.” (Acts iii. 25.) This was the language 
of Peter, and was spoken after the day of Pentecost; yet 
he tells the people that they are the children of the cove 
nant that God made with Abraham. Peter was the speaker 
on the day of Pentecost, and if a “new Church” was organ- 
ized on that day under a new covenant, he certainly knew 
it; and does it not seem strange that he would tell the 
people they were still under the Abrahamic ccvenaut? 


C. It does seem so. 
6 


82 THEOLOGICAL GRUR-AX. 

M. Can you show where God ever made a covenant with 
bis people, and did not include children? 

C. I do not remember any such covenant just now. 

M. Will you, then, have your children brought into 
covenant relation with God by baptism? 

C. I will, provided I cannot find scripture to overtur: 
your theory. Give me one week to examine all the texts 
you have used, and see what scripture I can find in support 
of the “new Church” theory, and I will report to you. 

M. Please allow me to give you a few more points tk 
consider. If God is the author of infant membership un- 
der the Abrahamic covenant, and that covenant was un- 
limited, does it not follow that infant membership is unlim- 
ited, unless God made some provision in the covenant for 
leaving them out at the expiration of a given time? 

C. It does seem so. 

M. If we leave them out without God’s authority, are 
we not trying to destroy the visible Church of God? 

C. It looks that way to me. 

M. I showed you that the Church on earth and in heaven 
is one family. (Eph. iii.15.) Now, I have shown you that 
the family, or Church, in Abraham’s day had children in 
it; and that you admit. Also, you admit that the family 
in heaven has children in it. So, you see, children had a 
right to membership in the Church of God in the past, and 
they have a right to membership in the future. Now, does 
it not seem strange and inconsistent that any one should 
exclude them in the present? 

C. That does look very strange. 

M. Can you think of any objection to rife meee 
10W that would not have been an objection in Abraham’s day f 

C. I do not think of any now. 

M. Do you believe that God loves your children as well 
as he loved the children of Abraham? 

C. Isee no reason why he should not. He is no respecter 
of persons 


A Treatise on Inranr Baptism. 83 

M. Do you think your children can do better without 
tlie benefits of God’s covenant than Abraham’s childrer 
could have done? 

C. I suppose not; but I cannot see what good it would 
do to baptize them before they know what it is for. 

M. Do you suppose Abraham’s eight days old babies 
xnew what they were circumcised for? 

C. Of course not. 

M. If Abraham had entertained your views of infant 
membership when God commanded him (Gen. xvii. 9-14) 
to give his infants the “token” of his covenant, don’t you 
think he would have said: “ Lord, I cannot see what good 
that will do; and if I were to do it, I am afraid the little 
things might ery; and besides, I am afraid when they 
grow to manhood they will be dissatisfied with it, and that 
would be awful. Lord, it looks so foolish to me, I cannot 
do it?” 

C. W-e-]-1], I—I wish to study the matter one week, and 
then I will give you my conclusion. 

M. Very well; be sure to study closely all the points ] 
have given you. Here is a manuscript which contains al] 
I have given you, and several more. It will assist you in 
getting up the points in order. 


LAST MEETING. 


C. Well, Brother Methodist, I have given an entire 
week to the points you presented on infant membership. 

M. Did you give them a candid examination? 

C. I am sureI did. I looked over the manuscript you 
gave me, and fell upon two sentences which caused me t 
reflect a little, and I determined to be honest. 

M. What were the sentences? 

C. The first one was, “ Prejudice keeps many from judg- 
ing fairly.” The second was, “Of all prejudices, religious 
ones are the most stubborn.” When I read these, I resolved 
to lay aside all preiudice, and let truth prevail. 


84 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 

M. That was right. What was the result of your ex- 
amination? 

C. The manuscript enabled me to get up the points in 
the following order, viz.: You showed (1) that, according 
to my own theory, infants should be baptized; (2) that if 

was in the Church, and my children were, as I claimed, 
setter than I am, they certainly had a right to a place in 
the Church; (3) that if, as I believed, my children were 
good enough for heaven, they certainly were good enough 
for God’s Church on earth; (4) that Jesus Christ was born 
a king, and sat on the throne of David, and not on the 
throne of a new Church; (5) that Jesus ruled the “house 
of Jacob,” and not a new Church; (6) that the twelve 
apostles were appointed by Christ to rule the twelve tribes, 
and not a new Church; (7) that Jesus placed his table in 
the tweive tribes, and not in a new Church; (8) that Peul 
had the hope of the twelve tribes, aud not of a new Church; 
(9) that James dedicated his Epistle to the twelve trib2s, 
and not to a new Church; (10) that arrangements were. 
made in heaven for the twelve tribes, and not for a raw 
Church; (11) that no divine writer ever addressed an 
epistle to, or spoke of, a new Church; (12) that there vas 
no kingdom, or Church, organized on the day of Pentecc it; 
(13) that the kingdom of David was established by ‘he 
apostles; (14) that the Abrahamic Church had the sa ae 
Saviour, the same gospel, and the same condition of parc n . 
that it now has; (15) that God never made two covena; ‘te 
to establish the same end; (16) that God never made a 
covenant to take the place of the one he made with Abra- 
ham; (17) that God made his new covenant “with the 

ouse of Israel and with the house of Judah,” and nza 
with a new Church; (18) that the new covenant was to dis- 
place the one he made with his people “when he took them 
by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,” and 
not the one he made with Abraham; (19) that if there was 
a new Church established on the day of Pentecost, it has 


A Treatise on Inranr Baptism 85 
a0 Lord’s table in it, and God has no covenant with it, so 
far as the Bible shows; (20) that the covenant God made 
with Abraham was unlimited; (21) that infants were in- 
cluded in that covenant, and that their right to Church- 
membership is unlimited; (22) that if God put infants into 
his Church, and we put them out without his authority, we 
are trying to tear down the Church of God; (23) that God 
loves our children as well as he loved the children of Abra- 
ham; (24) that our children need the benefits of God’s 
covenant as much as Abraham's did; (25) that we should 
lay aside all prejudice, and give this matter a candid in- 
vestigation; (26) that we— 

M. There, that will do. You have gotten the lesson 
well. Now, give me your conclusion. 

C. I have often said, publicly and privately, that I was 
willing to take the Bible on any subject, and I am going to 
make my word good. I am free to say that I think you 
have proved beyond a doubt that there was no kingdom, or 
Church, organized on the day of Pentecost, and that the 
covenant with Abraham was unlimited; and I think I am 
bound by that covenant to take my children into covenant 
relation with God. I have had great prejudice against in- 
faut membership, but I have made it a matter of prayer 
for the last week, and I am determined to do my duty. O 
how pleasant it will be to have my children, my “ house- 
hold,” with me in the Church! I do not know that the 
households of Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas, had chil- 
dren in them, but I come as near knowing that they did as 
that they did not; so I will just adopt Bible language, and 
have my “household” baptized. I reckon no reasonable 
person can object to that. 

M. Whether any one objects or not, your plan is safe, be 
cause the Scripture bears youout. But you have beer preach- 
ing for some years against infant baptism. Were you perfect- 
ly satisfied with your theory on that subject all the while? 

C. I cannot say that 4 was fully satisfied. 


86 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX 

M. What seemed to be the trouble? 

C. I will mention two points. You know that our Chureb 
teaches, in common with others, that the departure of Is- 
rael from Egypt was a type of sinners leaving the king- 
dom of Satan, and that the baptism which they received 
while crossing the Red Sea was a type of Christian bap- 
tism. I read in Ex. xii. 37 that there were “about six hun- 
dred thousand on foot that were men, besides children.” Also, 
in 1 Cor. x. 2, that they “were all baptized unto Moses in 
the cloud and in the sea.” If that baptism was a type of 
Christian baptism, as we all teach, it was hard for me to 
see how we could refuse to baptize infants, as God certainly 
baptized them on that occasion. 

M. I do not wonder that you were puzzled over that. 
Please give me the other point. 

C. I noticed that the shepherd and his flock were often 
made to represent Christ and his followers. Especially 
in the tenth chapter of John, Jesus calls his followers 
his sheep, himself “the good Shepherd,” and his Chureh 
“the fold;” and I knew it was the universal custom for 
shepherds to put the lambs into the fold with the old 
sheep. Also, Jesus said to Peter, “ Feed my lambs.” In 
regard to a flock of sheep, I knew it would be better to 
leave the old sheep out of the fold than it would to leave 
the lambs out, for they needed more care than the old sheep. 
If the shepherd, sheep, and fold represented Christ, his 
followers, and his Church, I could not understand why we 
should take grown people into the Church, and leave the 
babes—lambs—out. 

M. Do you remember any thing else that disturbed your 
mind on the subject? 

C. Yes, sir; a comment I heard you make on the com- 
mission, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xxviii. 19.) You said: “This 
passage does not say baptize men women. or children, and 


A Treatise on Inrantr Baptism. 87 
yet it says just the same about baptizing children that it 
dves about baptizing men and women. The command is, 
‘ Baptize nations,’ and nations are composed of men, wom- 
en and children. All admit that men and women are 
proper subjects for baptism, but some say children are not. 
Why do they say so? Is it because it is-anywhere for- 
-bidden in the word of God? No. Is it because of any 
covenant God made with his people in which he did not 
include children? No. Is it because the command to ‘ bap- 
tize nations’ does not include children? No, that canno: 
be, for children outnumber any other class in nations. Do 
you say it is because our children cannot be taught? Did 
not God command his people in the days of Moses to teach 
his commandments to their children when they sat down, 
and when they rose up, when they went out and when 
they came in? and did that injunction disqualify infants 
only eight days old for membership in the Church, because 
they could not understand God’s law at that age? No. 
Suppose we expel from the Church all of the one hundred 
und fifty pound babies who do not understand the law of 
God perfectly, how many would we have left? Few, very 
rEw. Take an illustration: Speaking of my sheep, I say 
tu my servant, ‘Go ye, therefore, put my flock into the fold 
feeding them.’ The servant puts in the old slieep, and 
leaves the lambs out. Isee the Jambs in great distress, and 
hear their piteous cries. I say, ‘Tom, why did you leave 
the lambs out?’ He replies, ‘ Because, waster, you did not 
say put up the lambs.’ ‘Did I say put up the old sheep? 
‘No sir, master, but you said put up the flock, feeding them 
and I knew the lambs were too little to eat’ hay, and 1 
thought, of course, you just meant put up those that could 
eat; and I thought the lambs would not know what I was 
putting them up for, and I thought, What good can it 
do to put them up when they can’t eat? better wait\ till 
they get big enough to know what it all meats... So I jast 
left them out.’ Ah! there is the secret! You thought. and 


wea” 


88 THEOLOGICAL GRUB-AX. 

therefore leave children out of the fold of Christ. God 
put them in, but you thought, and turned them out.” I 
must confess that I was a little fretted with you when you 
made those remarks, for I did not know how to meet your 
arguient, and I was too stubborn to admit that I was in 
an error; but ‘now I am thoroughly convinced, and since 
you have shown that the Abrahamic covenant was unlim- 
ited, you have dug up the tap-root of Campbellism, and de- 
utroyed our beginning-corner, for you know that the truth 
of our whole theory depends upon the “new Church” 


established at Pentecost. You have shown that there — 


was no new Church organized on that day, so our whole 
theory must go down. 


M. No surveyor can run correct lines from an incorrect ~ 


beginning-corner. 

C. No, sir. He may cross the correct line now and then, 
but he will not follow it. 

M. From a wrong beginning-corner your brethren have 
run into many errors, and some time in the near future I 
expect to take the theological grub-ax to many of them, 
and grub out the last germ. 

C. I wish to be at the grubbing. 

M. You shall have a ticket in due time. 

C. I am‘sure some of my brethren will not like you for 
dealing so plainly with our pet theory; and notwithstand 
ing all of our boasted liberty of private judgment on the 
teachings of the Bible, I expect to have great trouble about 
having my children baptized, and I think it likely that I 
may be expelled from the Church, or they may “with 
draw” from me, ay we call it. 

M. I rather suspect that your brethren will find verv 
«serious objections to your private judgment in this matter 
as it does uot, happen to accord with theirs; but be firm, 
and God will ststain you. Farewell until the next grub 
bing.’ ‘God bless you! 


Date Due 


Form 335—35M—9-34—C. P. Co 


Né19T 


S-hL ac! of Religion 


TN 
I it 350491N 


6r0SELOg 


—_—_— 


i 


| 


“ayn 


